Marroquin v. Gordon, 3:25-cv-01075

Frank Anthony Marroquin filed a civil suit, proceeding pro se, against Mr. Gordon of the California DMV.
Marroquin sought to have his driver’s license reinstated or a court order directing the DMV to do so.
Marroquin filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) due to financial hardship, but the court found his submission insufficient.
The court found Marroquin’s financial affidavit lacked detail, particularly concerning his means for basic living expenses.
Even if IFP were granted, the court evaluated the substance of Marroquin's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and found it legally deficient.
The court determined it lacked power to issue a writ of mandamus compelling a state official to act and dismissed the action.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eligibility for IFP	Marroquin cannot afford court costs.	Insufficient evidence of poverty	Court: IFP denied; financial info too vague
Federal court power to issue mandamus	Court should compel DMV to reinstate license	Federal courts lack such power	Court: Cannot mandamus state officials
Sufficiency of complaint	Complaint supports relief via mandamus/clarity	Complaint fails to state a claim	Court: Complaint dismissed under screening standards
Proper forum for relief	Sought federal intervention	Relief belongs in state court	Court: Remedy, if any, lies in state court

Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 657 F.3d 890 (9th Cir. 2011) (any person may seek IFP status, not just prisoners)
Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 1999) (discusses IFP process)
Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226 (9th Cir. 2015) (standards for IFP applications and allegations of indigency)
Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (mandatory screening for IFP complaints)
Clark v. Washington, 366 F.2d 678 (9th Cir. 1966) (federal courts cannot issue mandamus to direct state officials)